Read and Think!

It has long been thought that to account for the
widening inequality gaps that meritocracy creates, Singapore must make
the starting points for its people more equal, while being conscious of
the possibility of destroying the competitive environment that
meritocracy offers.

This thinking undergirds many policies that attempt to
provide equal opportunities for every child regardless of family
background.

But while desirable in itself, this may not be the
critical change Singapore needs if it wants to resolve the growing
inequalities and fault lines within society.

In his social
contract theory on “justice as fairness”, American philosopher John
Rawls argued that there are certain basic principles that people would
choose, if we were put in an original position of equality and able to
judge impartially (from behind a “veil of ignorance” of our own personal
circumstances).

These would include the difference principle:
The only social and economic inequalities permitted would be those that
work to the benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

The
meritocratic conception corrects for certain morally arbitrary
advantages, such as children born into poor families. But it is still
inherently unjust, as it bases distribution of rewards on factors that
are equally morally arbitrary, such as natural talent.

There is
an alternative: A society where the gifted are encouraged to develop and
exercise their talents, yet at the same time it is on the understanding
that the rewards reaped belong to the community. In this, a more
inspiring vision of equality can be realised.

IS BOTTOM BETTER OFF?

Singapore
has strived to manage inequality by providing equality of opportunity
and levelling the starting points, as evidenced by compulsory schooling
and bursaries given to the poor. Yet, the Gini coefficient has increased
over the last decade and is one of the highest among developed
countries.

It is clear this strategy is inadequate. Re-thinking Singapore’s fundamental philosophy and conceptions of justice is crucial.

Two
possible objections may be made against the difference principle: One,
that talented people may be disincentivised to enter demanding lines of
work given the high tax rates or small pay differentials; and two, that
it may be unfair to deny successful people their rewards, given the hard
work they have invested.

Rawls, however, has raised two
compelling counter-arguments. Firstly, there exists a distinction
between allowing wage differentials for the sake of incentives, and
arguing that the successful have privileged moral claims to the rewards
of their labour.

A narrow focus on increasing the gross domestic
product by paying the top-earners more or cutting taxes is not enough,
unless such policies also generate economic growth that make the bottom
better off than they would be under a meritocratic system with equal
starting lines. In short, income inequalities are acceptable only
insofar as they incentivise efforts to ultimately help the
disadvantaged.

Secondly, Rawls rejects the argument of hard work
and deserved rewards on the basis that effort may be the product of a
favourable upbringing and dependent on social circumstances for which
hard-working people may claim little credit.

Rawls’ argument may
lend weight to the common perception — whether empirically substantiated
or otherwise — that many students who come from well-to-do families or
have well-educated parents strive harder than others in their quest for
success.

“Justice as fairness” therefore rejects the notion that
income and wealth should be distributed solely according to virtue.
Rather, it is about the expectations that arise once the rules of the
system are in place. Changing the expectations is fundamentally more
important than merely tweaking the rules.

Rawls’ difference
principle reminds the talented that the qualities valued by society
currently are morally arbitrary: It depends on the contingencies of
supply and demand, and whether one is “talented” would depend on the
qualities Singapore happens to prize.

Revamping our institutions
therefore calls for a closer look at our governing philosophies of
meritocracy, including beliefs about levelling the starting points, and
the type of ideals we inculcate in our youth. Do we want a generation
that is brought up solely on meritocratic ideals instead of a stronger
sense of social justice and equality?

A strong sense of
self-entitlement based on inherited talents or even birthright should be
rejected, if Singapore wishes to stem or reverse income inequality.

Dickson Lee is a final-year law student at the Singapore Management University.